Monday, 24 March 2014

A well-rounded
character who feels like a real person is obviously what we all want to write.
Sometimes this naturally occurs, maybe because the character is based on a real
person or on an archetype of the genre. In some cases they may be based on
another fictional character from a favourite book.

The writer feels
comfortable with writing about them because they know exactly who they’re
writing about.

There’s no reason
why that approach won’t work. Obviously there’s the danger of creating a cliché
or stereotype, but even then that can work if the story is strong enough.

If, however, you
want to write a character from the ground up, a character who is as real as any
person living, yet wholly your own creation, then there are three aspects you
need to know in depth: the physical, sociological and psychological.

These three are
pretty straightforward to understand. Physical is how the character looks and
what kind of condition they’re in. Sociological is their background and current
circumstances. Psychological is their mental state and their attitude to life.

Knowing this,
though, is not the same as knowing how to use them to fully flesh out a
character.

Physical

You will have an
idea about how they character looks. You may have very specific details in
mind, or you may choose to keep things a little vague so the reader is more
easily able to identify with the character. How you present the character to
the reader is your choice and has nothing to do with what I mean by their
physical aspect.

The only important
role of physical appearance when it comes to creating a three-dimensional
character is how it affects their behaviour.

Do they feel
insecure about a big nose? Are they hit on by men because of good looks? Do
they stand out in a crowd because of their height? Does their poor health stop
them from doing strenuous activities? Do they dye their ginger hair out of
shame?

Any physical
attribute that doesn’t really bother the character one way or the other is
irrelevant. Not that you can’t include them if you wish, but in terms of
knowing who you are writing about there are things that will tell you a great
deal about them, and then there are things that don’t make much of a
difference.

Sociological

How someone is
brought up, where they come from and what kind of a life they had (rich, poor,
crime, privilege...) will all make a difference to the kind of person they
become.

This is true in real
life, and it’s the same for fictional characters.

There are two things
to be aware of here. First, it’s more important for the writer to know the
minutiae of the character’s background than it is for the reader. You don’t
have to give the reader an explanation of why the character is the way he is
(in fact I would strongly advise against it). What’s more important is the
resulting behaviour. But it will come across as more authentic and believable
if there is a solid foundation to this behaviour in the writer’s mind.

And secondly, bear
in mind that two people who grew up next door to each other with very similar
upbringings won’t be the same person. Just because someone is brought up in
financial hardship doesn’t mean they will turn to a life of crime. Just because
someone is abused as child won’t make them a serial killer.

Every cause has a
multitude of effects, some more common than others, but it’s the connection for
the writer (and eventually the reader) that counts. It’s obviously true that
the more common outcomes are quicker and easier to grasp, but it’s the
conviction of the writer, how strongly they believe in this particular cause
and effect, that will be transmitted to the reader.

That means even a
hackneyed premise can work if the writer is all-in, and equally, a brilliant
and original concept can fall flat on its face if the writer doesn’t really
believe in it.

Psychological

How a character
views life, what principles they hold to (if any) and how they react to
predicaments they may find themselves in comes down to two things, nature and
nurture.

To some degree,
people have an innate way of being. Some are depressed and surly, some are
upbeat and optimistic. Some are motivated and full of drive, others have to
drag themselves out of bed every morning. If one brother is consumed by science,
while the other is mad for racing cars, you’d be hard pressed to find the
source of these two different passions in their shared childhood.

This sort of genetic
disposition is of limited use in terms of writing. There are obviously people
like that, who are just born with a predilection to act in a certain way, but
if that behaviour plays a central role in the story then it can easily feel
contrived and convenient.

Why did he do that surprising thing? Nobody knows,
he’s always been like that...

The fact that this
may be true to life doesn’t make it interesting in a story, although that
doesn’t mean you can’t this sort of approach, it’s just that it should be used
with extra care.

The nurture part of
a character’s psychological make-up is basically a combination of the first two
aspects, the physical and the sociological.

Drawing a connection
between the way a person feels about themselves and how their environment has
treated them with the way they act in later life isn’t too difficult. But often
it feels easy because we’re marrying the first two things we think of and you
end up with something trite and obvious.

This is especially
common when you work backwards. You have a character in mind, he’s a
happy-go-lucky thief with a charming smile and a penchant for stealing from
very rich assholes, so what would his background be...? And as soon as you come
up with something that makes sense you bang it onto the page.

Working backwards
like this is, of course, a perfectly valid way to do it, but it’s worth
remembering that as well as each cause having many effects, it is also true
that each effect can have many causes.

Once you have a
grasp of these three elements you will have access to not only to what a character
would do in a situation but also why they would do it. That understanding will
enable a much more intimate relationship with the character which in turn will
lead to a more confident and assured approach to the story.

The psychological aspect made me think of my daughter's deviant behavior instructor who mentioned Ted Bundy in one of his lectures. He had an opportunity years ago to visit the death row prison where Bundy awaited his extermination.

His description of Bundy when he looked into his eyes was "he had no soul". That's pretty descriptive if you think about what Bundy loved about murdering his victims. He liked to squeeze until the victim's eyes rolled back into their heads and back, the life draining moment.

Great post about creating characters, concise and perceptive as usual. I hear too much about flawed characters, but I like the way you've set up the three point background much better because in truth, we're all "flawed," so it doesn't mean much to give a character obvious flaws. Thanks! :)

"Any physical attribute that doesn’t really bother the character one way or the other is irrelevant."

I must challenge you on that one. A physical trait can have an enormous impact on how others react to that character in ways said character is not fully aware. I do think too many writers get bogged down with details but there is more to the physical than self-perception.

My characters kind of come to me as I'm writing the story. They morph with time as I learn about them. I don't spend enough time going back and figuring out what caused them to feel that way in the first place.

Fleshing out characters is really important when writing a novel. I tend to only give one or two physical details, preferring to leave it up to the readers imagination. But the sociological and psychological I tend to spend a lot of time on these days. Thank you for sharing.